Goal: To be critical and reflect on the various aspects of the project so that we can be prepared to move forward

Topics:

• Connecting science with development
• Gaps
• Interventions

Questions:

• Does the research amount to anything on the ground?
• What about the project is new?
• To what degree is irrigation included?
• What has been/will be the impact of platforms on policy?
• Are the models effective/usable?
• Is the transition to participatory methods (including video) worth pursuing?
• What is the link between the 3 intervention areas?
• What is the impact of focusing on the interactions of the staff? Does this have any effect of policy?
• How do we influence policy and NRM at grassroots level
• Runoff - generation of accumulation?
• Where is erosion happening - on the slopes or on flatlands?
• What is the audience for outputs? For whom are they being produced?
• How can we be proactive and match the government's desire to push forward?
• What’s our role in engagement? At what level?
• How does this research support the government?
• For whom are the maps produced?
• Is it possible to use a multi-scale approach that feeds into development group and contributes to project planning? (This question was part of the SWOT discussion)
• How to address gaps?
• Are there any new technical interventions/inputs?
• Does new mean effective?
• Are innovation platforms appropriate for NRM?
• Is the approach to linear?
• What does the project have to offer the communities
• What is attractive to farmers?
• How many can afford it?
• Does it answer both global and local problems?
• What’s the status of participatory models?
• What looks new in terms of research, and what is emerging?
• What is our contribution to development outcomes?
• How do we link different levels of platforms and how do we link to the rest of the world?

Comment from Discussion:

• 1974 Indonesia rainwater management - upstream/downstream irrigation manual/model(?) has existed for a long time
• Too much focus on developing models not implementing them
• There should be more focus on development
• A handbook on NRM was developed by gov. ministry
• It is important to summarize interventions and focus on...
  • tools
  • arrangements
  • technical interventions
  • partners at different levels
• Cropping patterns
• The ministry is emphasizing irrigation and a move towards market-oriented agriculture
• Grassroots and policy-level changes require different outputs than research institutions
• The project is ultimately trying to address livelihoods - how people adopt practices, make decisions, and think is important to understand
• We must produce outputs for land users
• Topographic index approach
• Runoff generation accumulation
• There was some disagreement over where soil erosion is occurring
• Unclear how gender is being incorporated - how do impacts affect women?
• We need more thinking about the how and avoid innovation platforms turning into talk shops
• Some questions were raised about mapping at different scales
  • Basin?
  • District?
  • Watershed?
• Should take another look at climate change scenarios because the context is shifting
• Scale is a big issue
• SWOT came up a number of times
• Basic practices lead to hands on interventions
• Policy making and implementation are real challenges
• Innovation platforms at different levels
• Development needs more concrete actions
• Outputs aren't being used
• We need a mechanism for putting outputs into practice
  • Local leaders?
• Must bring science to development
• Livelihoods aspect produces a number of questions
  • How to address it?
  • Decision-making (individuals, communities, households, etc...)
• We need a better understanding of the risks, costs, and benefits
• Need to identify some tangible benefits that are more than minimal
• Innovation platforms and research process are “new”
• Technical interventions are “old”
• Link between technical and platform is new
• Institutional aspects are new
• Platform is new but somewhat ad hoc
• The platform needs more attention
• Understanding of landscapes, space, and borders is new
• Types of integration is new (water connects many components of landscape and livelihood)
• Benefits must also be integrated
• Gov. & policy cannot integrate as easily as the project
• Multiple sites/scales is new
• Recognition of complexity is new
• 40% failure rate of integration schemes
• Possibility vs. impact opportunity (?)
• There are many misconceptions about soil erosion
• Low slope is the problem (gullies are generated)
• Topographic index approach is new
• Results have not yet been quantified
• Manuals have limits because contexts vary so greatly
  • Mapping/context limit scaling
• The debate over erosion centered around the location of the erosion and whether or not the analysis/data was correct
• Development actors
• Institutional vs. technological
• The concept of newness is highly contextual
• Academic vs. applied
• Better interdisciplinary approach
• Cannot expect impact over a short time, but we must direct efforts towards it
• Many at the meeting believed the project is ready for that direction
• Gender is disaggregated at all levels of research
• Gender is inherent in the social sciences
• What do women vs. men vs. landless vs. pastoralists want
• Innovation platforms are on the cusp of action
• Innovation funds
• GIZ in Jedu - engagement with development partners
• IWMI is potentially a small player at the intervention level
• Better feedback loops are needed
• Participatory models are geared towards decision making
• Science → tools → platforms → farmers
• Support for planning
• Research group vs. development actors
• Learning the watershed approach at smaller watersheds (Oromo)
• New pilot testing site for smaller watersheds
• We have made linkages with development partners over the last 2 years
• Careful not to reinvent the wheel on our own
• Summarize key interventions
• Rely on development partners to champion key interventions
• New institutional models
• Food aid was given as an example
• Must distinguish IWMI from previous framework to approach new patterns
• Happy strategies
• Staff can contribute to national agenda
• Time to go beyond N1, N2, N3, etc...
• Come up with agenda and innovation platform at the national level
• Discussion about how different projects contribute to the platforms hasn’t happened
• Virtual network vs. physical meetings
• Haven’t discussed what to do before national platform meeting in July(?)
• N4 has different partners, entry point, and strategy
• Remember that it has only been approx. 2 years
• Evidence-based not theoretical
• Research/academic validity must be supplemented by validation from the community
• Remember to highlight the potential
• It is important to interact within existing structures